Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

But how do I know that it's a misuse? misuse according to whom?

You can tell, because the point of philosophy is to provide clear answers to well formed questions.  When it provides no answer to confused questions...thats a misuse, just like trying to eat lentil soup with a hammer.

Morality changes with the people; morality in Rome was so different that morality in modern day France. Morality in modern Egypt is so different than ancient Zulu tribal societies.

Sure, our concepts of morality and even what fall under the moral purview have changed.  Were you going somewhere with this? Personally, I;d focus more on what has remained consistent over time, you might even say fundamental..between all disparate versions of morality.

That's also a very subjective matter. Give me a society; make me live in it for a while; and I'll give you what they think "the justification of any given mean" is.
In Japan, it's okay to be pedophile. It's not pedophilia there. The minor's "age" is 12 or younger. So lots of intercourse would be considered "pedophilia" in the West.

But once you set foot in Japan; you're a foreigner outsider that should keep their moral code to themselves; since the people of the island already have a moral code which is pretty different than yours. Making it a fact that morals are a subjective matter.

Referring to moral disagreement doesn't establish that morality is subjective.  There would be moral disagreement regardless of whether or not morality was objective or subjective.  It simply demonstrates that people have subjective opinions with regards to morality...which we already knew, yes?  

Contracts keep the kids known by name; keep the father (who should spend) attached to the responsibility; and keep the women with an evidence against the husband if he ran away. All are problems the west is so drenched in; and I keep Eminem to rap some facts about how sick he is, and how sick is his "faggot father" is:

You're not commenting on "contractless sex", above.  You're commenting on absentee fathers.  

I don't want to be "the faggot father"; I know I can't have kids when I'm broke; I know that I love bareback sex; And I know that I will resist doing it.
"Haram" for the sake of the unborn. I personally think that homosexuality might be lesser in sin than throwing a soul in the garbage.

Then wrap it up, dingus.  You don't need o marry a girl to wear a rubber.

How? I don't have a proper example; so I presented myself as one.
You can consider what you consider; it's a subjective opinion after all !

Th trouble is that it's not even a subjective opinion on the subject you proposed, which was contractless sex, not absentee fathers.  

Morals need people to adapt them. For a moral code to become religions or cultures we need more than two believers in the moral code. Each agreed to the moral code based on their subjective opinion.

Is the harm you feel done by absentee fathers just a matter of opinion?  Or do you feel that this harm is palpable, demonstrable, and beyond any one persons subjective appraisal?  In short, do you think that absentee fathers are objectively harmful?  

When the subjective opinion of so many change; a revolution on that culture-religion comes; change. To cause a revolution over the moral code of a culture; you change the subjective opinions of the people.

Sure, people are neccessarrily subjective creatures, but we already knew that.  I thought we were wondering whether or not morality was objective or subjective?  

The "need" is the cause of that requirement. We as humans need food, drink, air and even social interactions, and from these needs a portion of humans tend to think that an intelligent designer must be there to ensure the delivery of the answers to these needs.

When's the last time allah showed up with a cup of coffee and a donut, to ask you how your morning was?  This is a statement of the articles of your faith..not an explanation for a divine requirement to morality.

the "if" cannot be authentic without a designer. The constants and variables of the universe would differ drastically if things were random. We won't be according to most interpretations.

Another statement of the articles of your faith..and still not an explanation for any divine requirement to morality.  A simple answer to the simple question I asked would have shed more light on your status as a moral creature....see what I mean about misuse?  

Maybe a designer who is pushing humanity inside a filter called life? a design with ups and downs to write upon the person their deeds; either good or bad. Satan already rebelled against the standards of the designer; so humans were given the right to either rebel or submit; too.

What's the moral significance of submission or rebellion?  I worry, that this..and your response to Sa above...is indicative of an arbitrary morality, not so much a subjective one. If morality is as you seem to think it is, what's the significance of pursuing my own morality as opposed to some purportedly divine one? Is it all going to be reduced to a "Do what I say or burn" equation...because, if so, we're not discussing morality. We'd be discussing fealty to arbitrarity and punishment for non-conformity.

Capable; but always have a choice to either do or not do.
It's about choosing your moral code. Humans got split in choice; from the Adam-Eve sin and repent, to Judaism, Christianity,Islam, non belief...etc. The choices are so many; and the models are also so many.

I don't think that people choose their moral codes, at least not in any meaningful sense.  We're compelled by them, and compelled to them..for a variety of reasons/non-reasons.  I can't choose, for example..to regard rape as anything other than wrong.  How about you?  

We are created capable, so we can choose. Or in other words; so we will be filtered in this life; then go to either heaven or hell depending on our deeds.

You seem to want to talk djinn rather than morality. Would you expect to learn much about baseball from an hour long discussion of whitefly in tomato production?